Something not often mentioned is that while most passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they're on, many of them are now well aware of the 737 MAX and don't want to fly on one. Even if a completely perfect fail-safe idiot-proof fix is installed this afternoon, a lot of people will still actively avoid the MAX, and probably 737s in general. Whether the experts here agree with them or not, there's far more members of the paying public than there are aviation experts, both real and self-appointed. The fallout from this is going to last for a very long time.

Eh, not so clear. I'm sure there are contractual provisions governing this, and between highly sophisticated companies like Boeing and the airlines, the courts will likely let them control. But, if it weren't covered by those, the plane would likely fail to meet the implied warranty of merchantibility under the UCC. If that affected the value of the plane, that would be a direct loss and would be compensable. The losses from an inability to attract people to the palne because of a defect would be a consequential damage, which is recoverable in the absence of an effective contractual waiver of that right.

No need to hold the FAA in contempt they are doing what other agencies are doing, You need to ask why so many including the FAA are seemingly negligent. The root of our trouble is within government, not at agency levels it is much higher up than that and extends to the powerful which includes many aircraft owners.

Let's be clear, the FAA have let everyone down by not doing their job properly. It is up to them to ensure that regulation is met, and that safety is of upmost priority. This, they failed to do. Period.

Here we go again, another subtle dig at the current administration. FYI, the budget "cut" was about 2% which should not affect the FAA's ability to do their job. Most federal govt. workers have relatively high salaries, fantastic benefits, and guaranteed pensions and benefits for life when they retire - all of which cost a lot of money. How many private-sector workers have all that? The problem with the FAA and so many other govt. agencies and institutions is firstly little to no accountability and secondly incompetence. Giving the government more money is not going to solve any of the problems. Holding these folks, both Boeing and FAA executives and managers, accountable is the only way.

in the 2010 motion picture "the big short" there is a scene about the mortgage industry convention in las vegas. while that is a financial based motion picture, if you take "SEC" out and replace it with "FAA" the scene is just as accurate. let's cover another subject, when will the NTSB investigate flaming teslas? answer, never.

The issue is that no one at Boeing has yet to say, "it's our fault". It's the pilot's fault, the airlines fault, the FAA's fault, etc. We obviously haven't gotten high enough up the Boeing food chain to get anyone to accept responsibility. What ever happened to "the buck stops here" attitude?

He didn't actually admit anything, he just wanted to sound like he was sorry. If Boeing said "It's our fault. We screwed up. We're sorry", they automatically lose every lawsuit that's been filed against them and open themselves up to countless more lawsuits from airlines, passengers, and victims' families. They'll be bankrupted out of existence so quickly that it would be like Scotty beamed them off the planet.

*Of course* it was their fault, but they're *never* going to say that.

My take, based on the facts as they have generally been reported, is that Boeing is going to lose all these suits, admission or no, so an admission would have no effect on Boeing's liability. A statement like that might violate Boeing's duty to cooperate with its insurers. Because the insurers will have a large share of the exposure on this and the exposure is huge--half a billion is a low estimate, IMO--Boeing has a reason to make sure it doesn't do that.

An advantage of admitting a mistake might reduce the likelihood that a court awards punitive damages.

I am always stunned by how journalists set themselves up as aviation "experts". Just as Scott Glenn said as Chuck Yeager in the movie "The Right Stuff", Half of the engineers have never been off the ground." You can let the classroom override "real world" experience to the point you miss what is right in front of you. As one pilot I know said, "You still have to fly the damn airplane". I see nothing wrong with the 737 MAX that cannot be solved with proper training. If there was any flaw it would be not enough experience with a new airplane. Of course with journalists, too often ratings and newspaper sales bloom on fresh graves.

As opposed to the keyboard warriors on here who prefer willful ignorance of evidence and sweeping generalisations about an entire profession. You "see nothing wrong with the 737 MAX that cannot be solved with proper training" but conveniently forget to mention that most pilots didn't even know the system existed, let alone be trained for it. But it's easier to quote lines from a Hollywood movie rather than facts, isn't it?

Perhaps they can do an exchange. Trade 2 Boeing Max 8s for a valuable Airbus 320 neo. The Boeing's could be sold for scrap or expensive dog food cans. The engines and all reusable parts should be sold. It's not that bad there are things they can salvage. The board should be fired from the commercial aircraft division. Get to work building a new model. ASAP!

a whole lot easier than another incident would be. considering how vast a system failure that got us to this point had to have been, and the inherently flawed design of the max 8, many factors need to be reconsidered. call me biased but i would never pilot one and risk being blamed such as the pilots have been blamed despite not being told what type of craft they were flying. but i guess like in law, ignorance is never a defense.

It's not a matter of them sitting their. These aircraft can't be flown safely. So for now there are several billion in machines that earn a lot of money in an operational life. This aircraft is wrong for the wings and engines. You have 3 airlines in North America with about 100 aircraft parked or undelivered. What do you think their boards are thinking. Get em flying or sell them for a better deal from other manufacturers. CEOs are under the gun to turn this mess around.

"Can't be flown safely"?????? That is an utter garbage statement, and anyone who has experience in professional aviation knows it. Are there issues with the incorporation of some systems? Yes. Does it condemn a whole aircraft line? No. Stop making global statements when you have a village level view.

This series of events has shone light on some dark practices, of course. The self certification, for one. The Feds letting their job be completed by someone else. Shoddy housekeeping issues. The list goes on, as it does at THOUSANDS of other companies every day! It is just that these tragic crashes have brought scrutiny to them.

They still make great aircraft, some stronger than others in design and redundancy. Don't fuel the fire with inflammatory statements such as the one you made. It is better to keep your moth shut and be thought of as a fool, than to open it and confirm you are.

Cansojr has never let facts get in the way of a stupid opinion, so consider the source. He thinks airlines that can't/won't fly the aircraft can just "sell them for a better deal". He may be dumb enough to buy unwanted aircraft, but airlines aren't.

That article is just another example of a smugly-written, self-serving piece designed to do nothing more than sell papers. "Journalists" like this clown just can't avoid joining the myriad of other idiots on the bandwagon even though very few of them have a clue about (1) the complexity of both the hardware and the software that's involved, (2) how either investigation is actually progressing, or (3) what Boeing and the FAA are doing to remedy the situation. I'm sure he thinks his sarcasm is amusing, but I doubt the families of the passengers who were killed in the 2 accidents would find his comment in the last paragraph about the impact of the ground very amusing.